The Unpopular Truth
Inquiring into their beliefs that their most cherished individuals do not share is a reasonable concern that will undoubtedly reveal a great deal about that individual. It makes no difference if it is a significant reality or no one else accepts it. Right now, I'm more interested in radical, counter-mainstream beliefs than in the realities held by ideological minorities.
In my opinion, the world would undoubtedly be a better place with a worldwide federal government. Humanity can only create a sustainable future with a federal government that spans the globe. Humanity cannot progress without global administration, which subjugates national governments.
Changes to the environment, the sanctuary movement, cyber-security, economic development, money laundering, and pandemics are international issues. Take cyber-security as an example; it can't exist independently of cyber-security globally. You won't be able to prevent hackers from accessing your web servers unless all of them are secure. Without a trustworthy global strategy, there can be no effective national pandemic plan. Because viruses do not respect national boundaries, international cooperation is essential.
Our shared public areas are known as the commons. Commons, fields, plazas, or other open areas were common in older communities. The unfortunate situation where the commons were used but not maintained—everyone took from them, but nobody restored them—was known as the catastrophe of the commons. Humans are in a similar position now; we seek global civil freedoms but reject global obligations. One sign of a worldwide common catastrophe is this.
Numerous international agencies, as well as numerous treaties and laws on a worldwide scale, are already in existence. Long before the rise of empires, there was the concept of a global domain. The Republic of the Whole World may begin with the League of Nations. We have established mechanisms for transferring funds, agreements about civil rights, the regional application of legislation, and war policies. Current institutions like the United Nations can make recommendations to governments, but they do not have the power to really control those governments. Put another way, it is powerless on a global scale. It is not an independent body. How can an individual today make a difference at the United Nations?
There is no democratic global governance and no global federal government whatsoever. Despite this, I hold the unconventional view that global management of the planet requires this transnational international power.
It seems that a global federal government—even a good one—would bring about great trouble. How would it undoubtedly serve its purpose? The concept of an entirely global organization with ultimate say is regarded with skepticism today when even relatively harmless firms like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and WeChat are perceived as being intolerably too large. Much of the world views global power with suspicion. If you wanted to bail, where would you go? Is there a way out if the international federal government collapses? There aren't any simple answers.
Putting aside these concerns, the desire to abandon outdated ideas of national sovereignty is the primary practical barrier.
While this will be challenging for any nation, the strongest will find it particularly so.
Regardless of these and other valid concerns, federated nations would benefit from a global government. We have the power to replace the military model with a police one, to address global warming, to promote human advancement, and to establish the fundamental human freedom to travel the world. I get that very few people believe that these days, but that's fine with me. Generations will be required.
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
Congratulations @lucidlucrecia! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 4000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP
Check out our last posts:
To confirm your authorship of the content, could you please add the link to your Hive blog to your well-established social media account like Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter (which has not been recently created).
After you add the link, please respond to this comment with the URL link to that website.
You can remove this mention, once we confirm the authorship.
Thank you.
More Info: Introducing Identity/Content Verification Reporting & Lookup
Is there a particular reason that you're asking for social media verification? Was this article lifted from elsewhere?
Hive allows people to remain anonymous. If they do not wish to reveal their identities, they have a right to do so. Nobody should be required to verify their identity to a single anonymous person who acts as an authority, which is approved by a small minority of people with a large stake. Are you willing to verify your identity?
Stop harassing our users for no reason. You're making active, engaging users leave the blockchain. Stop destroying what is left of this platform.
I'm glad they're challenging her. She has been posting nothing but Ai generated or content by others in threads, so I checked her blog. After thinking it sounded too polished for the content she typically shares I checked it on a free plagiarism checker. It came out clean, but it's more likely she pays to have the same checker service rewrite it for her, so it appears to be original. Notice the topics... None of her topics are original in any way. It's all topics typical spammers use, because it's been extensively written about by early bloggers. HW uses better paid services to check content and have found it elsewhere, so requires she proves it's her content. I bet it isn't and she's been lying to and stealing from everyone, including you for quite a while
Thanks for sharing this information. I'm interested to see whether they actually put up a source. There's been a long history of abuse on their behalf, but I certainly do acknowledge and appreciate when they catch someone legitimate.
I think they used to add the source, but the comment came across as being too accusatorial, so they just went with this to ask them to verify rather than pointing fingers right off the bat. Other users were taking it as proof of plagiarism in the past and attacked people. This more laid back approach has limited witch hunts by those who come across these comments on content. It's an innocent until proven guilty approach
I'd consider it innocent until proven guilty if they didn't automatically start downvoting all of a user's posts. Asking first without downvoting is non-accusatory. This is among the big issues I've had with them - they punish before even giving people an opportunity to reply. This scares innocent people away.
I do disagree with those who witch hunt, of course. Proof first! Enact justice the right way.
To be honest, they did already find proof of plagiarism and it's on her to prove it wasn't. The biggest argument is that no one is guaranteed rewards, whether or not it's original, so it's not really a punishment. I disagree with them, but the largest accounts disagree with us and they have the power. This is just an investment to them and they'll say that they are simply protecting it. Now again I disagree, but if code allows it it's the law
Frankly I'm against having a centralized entity doing this job, controlled by one person. Not to mention the fact that this entity is earning A LOT more in DHF funds than they protect by downvoting (primarily) tiny users, but that's besides the point.
This entity alone is the most centralized aspect of Hive, and frankly functions as its own worst enemy, despite the good intentions with which it began.
If we have decentralized entities (individuals) doing the same downvoting, you wouldn't hear opposition from me.
Hope that makes sense, because I'm not against the downvoting mechanism (and the concept of "rewards aren't guaranteed") in general.
I agree, but unfortunately the majority of those touting decentralization don't actually understand it or want it. That's why the HW DHF has passed. People want others to do the dirty work for them. That being said, recently HW withdrew the proposal for 350HBD a day and introduced one asking for much less at 95HBD
Didn't see that! It's a least a bit more reasonable (not to say that I'd support it).
Anyway... we'll see what happens with this user. Not sending rewards just yet.
Hello @alphahippie
That is correct. The articles are either directly generated by AI or it is plagiarism of AI-generated articles (possibly from Hindi or Urdu).
Also, comments are spamming with AI-generated images.
The analysis of the last few posts.
There is a related account that has been abused with similar content. Possibly the same person - "sabrinah". It is possibly a fake female identity. The account has been spamming with identical AI-generated articles and AI comments (and also refused to verify).
Some of abuses in "sabrianh" account:
I would be very careful in curating any content in Free Compliments. In the past few years, this curator has proven to be endlessly onboarding and curating abusers. More than 60-70% of accounts that have been curated by that curator have been heavy abusers (mass plagiarists and/or AI-content fraud spammers, etc)
The list of some of the major abusers curated by Free Compliments:
hafizaftab
irfanmustafa
irfanmustafa1
leana-ramen
legendwushu
lifeclicks
maurojd
nabbas0786
nazashraf
revjohno
silarai
I'd also be careful to trust the way that this account misrepresents what we do.
We've only begun onboarding people this month, and none of the people mentioned in this list have been onboarded by us. If this is an example of your investigative skills, then you're doing an extremely poor job.
Your classification of abuse has also been inconsistent, including the usage of AI (which we do not strictly prohibit, if properly attributed). Additionally, your classification of the "majority" of our users is also a sweeping generalization, incorrect, and frankly offensive, as most of our users, including those who joined at the very beginning, are trusted members who have been posting here honestly for years, and continue to do so.
Remember that we;re dealing with one individual here, @alphahippie, who is, after all, a human. The bias is extensive, and the dishonesty is rampant. Since I've run this community with a stringent focus on free speech, they've selectively targeted our users for a while, including quite a few innocent ones. A few of the users listed above were actually relatively new users who didn't understand Hive at the time of their initial offenses, and corrected their behavior after I spoke to them.
Regarding @lucidlucrecia - Lucrecia, I'd greatly appreciate if you would attribute your articles as using AI to assist, if you are doing so. It's a small line to include at the end. Several months ago we did collectively decide, as a community, to not curate completely AI-generated articles.
@sabrinah, I think you should see this because your name was mentioned with an accusation, but without a tag.
EDIT: also, how does identity verification help if the accusation is using AI to generate articles? 🤔
Oh, I know all about it.
The first three were dragged out when I said I wasn't willing to share my social media account and that I wanted to remain anonymous.
Those were posts I made at the beginning when I barely knew my way around here.
The last ones are thread replies I contributed to Threadcasts on Inleo.
I heard AI was allowed on the thread cast since we are trying to add more content to #LEOAI. I did forget to mention it was AI generated since I thought it was accepted and all.
Once hive watchers said AI comments are not allowed, I stopped contributing to the threadcast altogether.
No, @hivewatchers, I am not the owner of those accounts you added to my name. With my high activity on Hive, I wouldn't have the strength to run two accounts. I am not a bot. I just have insomnia and I sleep less so with Hive I can dedicate those hours to commenting and writing instead of wasting away or looking to drink or use drugs.
Your account is
notblacklisted.It has been removed from the blacklist?
Yes. I recommend refraining from publishing fraudulent content.
Thank you. I understand.
What do I need to do to remove my account from blacklist?
Just fyi, AI comments are allowed on Hive; it's just that the person running Hivewatchers doesn't like them. They don't own Hive and cannot dictate what is and what is not allowed.
If they were honest enough to use their personal account to downvote AI content, I wouldn't criticize them. However, they're using a DHF-funded account, which makes it a centralized entity that's funded only because of a few people with high stake.
Even the owner of HSBI revoked their vote on their proposal because of disagreements with AI usage, which were instituted without prior discussion with the community as a whole (this change occurred before I joined Hive).
Barely knew?
https://hivel.ink/hive-174578/@anonyi/abuse-report-too-many-coincidences
I've been here since the days of Steem, so fully understand the issue. What you may not know is that @guiltyparties doesn't just run HW, but also helps people recover keys to their account, regain access to hacked accounts and other tech support a decentralized platform wouldn't normally have.
I actually know that guiltyparties is not the primary individual running the HW account on a day-to-day basis. Guiltyparties does provide some very valuable services here!
Then it's not just one person like you've been claiming. GuiltyParties is the primary guy for HW and always has been. There's a team involved here, because it's a very complex issue with a very high occurrence of spam for farming. India and Nigeria are the top countries where these scammers originate.
I meant one person running the account on a day-to-day basis, communicating with people through the HW account and making decisions. To my understanding, most of these decisions and communications are not run by guiltyparties directly.
Yes, I have noticed that members from those two countries have been the most substantial perpetrators. I think you can count Pakistan there as well (at least from my limited experience here). I certainly don't want to discriminate against posters who are from those countries, but it may be worth keeping an eye.
@yecier just tagging you here since there's some discussion about manual curation and the origin of some scammers/spammers that we may come across.
FC's intent on freedom compared to other communities unfortunately makes it ripe for abuse.
He was the main guy back in the Steem days when I had a run in with them. Things do change, but he's one of the founders of the program, I do believe. I showed them the proof they asked for and never had a problem since. Those who choose to put up a big stink and not do the simple thing by showing the content is original, means they stole it and are trying to push the attention away from themselves.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. For instance, some people want to remain anonymous on Hive, and that's their right. You don't necessarily have to reveal your personal identity on social media. It's not a requirement, and frankly should not be. Privacy is a stringent value for some people.
Now, if someone's direct content is being plagiarized, and the author is earning from it, then I can absolutely understand skepticism. That's literally theft of intellectual content.
What I don't like is that HW asks for such verification to be posted to other social media accounts (some people want Hive to be separate, and that's ok) and conduct a lot of their "business" through Discord, a centralized entity, rather than directly on Hive. Nobody should be forced to use other platforms just to satisfy HW's individual demands. Everything can be done on Hive.
In Lucrecia's particular case, the suspicion was that the content was AI-generated. Asking for identity in this situation is inappropriate. Providing proof of AI generation would also be appropriate, since there's an accuser. Otherwise, you're operating under a "guilty until proven innocent" presumption.
I certainly can't speak for how HW was back in the day, only what I've seen while I've been here. I distinctly recall liking the idea of HW the first time I came across it - until I saw the interactions.
Hello.
There is reasonable evidence that this article has been heavily processed with AI.
We would appreciate it if you could avoid publishing AI-generated content (full or partial texts, art, etc.).
Thank you.
Guide: AI-Generated Content = Not Original Content
If you believe this comment is in error, please contact us in #appeals in Discord.